NOTE TO THE
READER: What follows is John Rankin's paper as presented on 13 October
2002 in Casper, Wyoming in his debate with Fred Phelps. They debated the
topic,"Does God Hate Homosexuals?," with Mr. Phelps arguing
'yes' and Rev. Rankin arguing 'no.' In the lecture at Washburn University
on 17 April 2004, Rev. Rankin added additional commentary interspersed
with the text of the paper, as shown below.

[reading from text]The definitive question is this: Does love define hate,
or does hate define love? To define something means that the one giving
definition is greater and prior to what is defined. It means that what
is defined cannot exist otherwise.

[commenting on text]
The only definitions come from those who are prior to determining defines.
Is that fairly clear? And so does love define hate, or does hate define
love. Which comes first in the order of the universe?

In 1 John 4, the apostle
says:
"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love"
(v.8).

There you have a definitive statement. “God is love.”

Jesus sums up the greatest
commandments as loving God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength,
and thus, to love our neighbors as ourselves.

John says that by definition, God is love. And Jesus says that our neighbors
include our enemies. Is there any definitive statement in the Bible that
says God is hate? No. Therefore, it is God's nature as love that defines
any language of hate.

www.godhatesfags.com starts with hate, not love. Therefore hate is its
defining identity, implying that this is where God's identity begins -
contrary to Scripture.

My whole argument here
is that Fred Phelps and his website are contrary to Scripture.

The Bible is the story of creation, sin and redemption, as defined in
Genesis 1-3. The order of creation is good, sin reverses and breaks that
order, and redemption reverses the reversal and restores the goodness.
The word Gospel means to "announce good news," and is rooted
in Genesis 1-2. The God of creation is greater than space, time and number,
and he is entirely good. Pagan religions all start with an assumption
of destruction at the outset.

I gave detail of that
this morning.

But how can something be destroyed unless it has first been created? This
leads to a second question: Does creation define destruction, or does
destruction define creation?

This is the key theological
point. Every religious origin text in human history, apart from the Bible,
starts with war. It starts with destruction. The Babylonian Genesis, the
mother of all pagan religions out of which every other pagan religious
origin text is rooted, starts with gods and goddesses warring against
each other. And as they’re warring against each other, Marduk upends
Tiamat’s army, he kills her and splits her body in half. When he
splits her body in half, with one half of the carcass, described as a
mussel shell, he makes the heavens. The other half he makes the earth.
The whole identity of understanding of creation in pagan religion is it
comes out of destruction. But how can you destroy something that has not
first been created? Where did the universe come from? The Babylonian Genesis
never gets to that question. And after this initial war there are all
the losers and Tiamat’s army are made into slaves, they complain
about being slaves, so Marduk makes another god Kingu, and then out of
Kingu’s blood he makes man and woman to be slaves to slaves. So
the whole understanding of human nature in the Babylonian Genesis is we
are meant to be slaves. And every pagan religion does not overcome that.
And the reason being is they have no understanding of original goodness.
Yahweh-Elohim by definition in his Hebrew name is greater than space,
time and number. In his goodness greater than space, time and number,
his nature is defined as the power to give with the act of creation. And
therefore we start with goodness and freedom to say no to goodness, which
is where sin and brokenness come from. Then God’s redemptive love
to restore us to his goodness. The key
thing here to understand in critiquing Fred Phelps is the
nature of goodness. Goodness is that which gives. Goodness is that which
is created. Goodness is that which loves. And love by definition is volitional.
You cannot love someone you don’t choose to love. Does anyone know
what forced love is? It’s rape. And that’s what pagan religion
is full of. True love requires reciprocation, it requires volition, it
requires informed choice. So this is the whole predicate of divine love
on its own terms. And the question again, does creation define destruction,
or does destruction define creation? You have to have it one way or the
other. During the interaction period between Fred Phelps and me, I asked
him the question: Is the Bible defined by the doctrines of creation, sin
and redemption in Genesis 1 and 2? And even, and this was part of my thesis
at Harvard, where my evangelical faith was a minority. Even as I argued
this at Harvard Divinity School, people may not believe in the inspiration
of Scripture as I do, but they know that this is the Bible on its own
terms. And Fred Phelps said no, no, he protested I was wrong. But he never
answered the question about creation, sin and redemption. So what he is
doing by not saying that creation precedes destruction, is he is saying
that destruction precedes creation. So please tell me, how can that be
argued?

www.godhatesfags.com starts with a statement of destruction, not creation.

C.S. Lewis speaks of "the good infection" of the Gospel, rooted
in the parable of Matthew 13:33. What infects what? Does love infect and
poison the power of hate? Or vice versa?

The parable, by the
way, is Jesus says that the Kingdom of God is like a woman who took a
little bit of yeast and worked it into the whole batch of dough, and therefore
getting increase. Now what’s interesting is, yeast in the Bible,
or leaven, is in every case except Matthew 13 and the same parable in
Luke, is regarded as a negative. In other words, how sin can affect and
it can metastasize in the cancerous sense. But Jesus reverses that language.
He talks about the Kingdom of God being a good infection, good infection
actually is what C.S. Lewis calls it. So here’s a question: Does
love infect and poison the power of hate, or vice versa? Which do we invest
trust in? And my belief is that love can poison hate. Love can trump hate.
It’s the opposite for Fred Phelps.

Do we, in the ministry of the Gospel, infect the world with the Good News,
or do we infect it with the bad news of hate versus hate? In Romans 12,
Paul shows how it is that love defines hate. He says:

"Love must be sincere. Hate was is evil; cling to what is good"
(v.9).

Thereafter, Paul shows how to hate evil with the power of love:

So, when the Bible gets
the language of hate, we are to hate evil for the sake of love. It’s
true. If someone is about to drive their car off a cliff don’t we
want to hate that action if we love that person? To try to stop them from
driving off the cliff? The only time we can use the language of hate is
when we are hating evil because evil hurts people. Paul continues here.

"Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right
in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you,
live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave
room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge: I
will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: 'If your enemy is hungry,
feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this,
you will heap burning coals on his head.' Do not be overcome by evil,
but overcome evil with good" (vv. 17-21).

How is it possible for www.godhatesfags.com to obey this Scripture, to
do what is right in the eyes of everybody, to live at peace with everyone,
or to show love to its enemies? Is it not defeated already, being overcome
by evil?

Where does biblical preaching start? Is it with creation, sin or redemption?
If we start with redemption, and do not define the depths and consequences
of sin, we give false comfort. If we start with sin, and seek to scare
the hell out of people, then we give false warning, for no prior goodness
has been defined. We must start with the order of creation, so that as
the height of its goodness is grasped, the depth of the fall can be understood,
and the hope of redemption's height can be embraced.

Take a look for example
at Buddhism. Even in its protest against Hinduism it started with one
simple principle. The first principle it defines is, suffering is. Hinduism
the same. Egyptian religion the same. Babylonian religion the same. Greek,
Roman mythology, Norse, Mayan, you name it. They all start with the understanding
that suffering exists. Uniquely in the Bible it starts with goodness.
So if we start our preaching with hate we’ve already lost. We’ve
already forfeited the Bible on its own terms. That’s what all pagan
religion does. If we start with redemption without defining sin, then
we give false comfort. We can not know the height of God’s love
for us, made in his image. Or put it this way. We first need to know the
height of God’s love. Only then can we understand the tragedy of
the depths of sin. From that perspective understand the height that brings
us back to the goodness of Genesis 1 and 2 where God says it is good,
good, good.

When Paul addressed the pagan philosophers of Athens in Acts 17, he started
with the order of creation, not with its reversal. Thus a third question:
Does hope define fear, or does fear define hope?

www.godhatesfags.com starts with the preaching of sin, not with the order
of creation; with fear, not hope.

The goodness of the Gospel can be summed up in six ethical components.
The word "ethics" refers to how we relate to each other. This
is the love of God and one another.

The first ethic is the power to give.

Yahweh Elohim, the sovereign and good God of creation, gives man and woman
stewardship over his good creation. The power to give is the definition
of goodness and love. Love is goodness given, even if rejected. Forced
love is rape, and therefore not love.

There are only two choices in life: Give and it shall be given, or take
before you are taken. To take from others is to rob their humanity, an
act of destruction. One of Satan's names is the "destroyer."

Therefore, we can pose a fourth question: Does God define Satan, or does
Satan define God? The corollary, and therefore fifth question, is: Does
giving define taking, or does taking define giving? If Satan defines the
terms, then the universe implodes automatically, and could never have
existed to begin with.

www.godhatesfags.com allows Satan to define the terms; it starts with
the power to take and destroy the humanity in hurting or even rebellious
people, and not with the power to give.

Let me just back up a
second and go back to the pace of questions that I’m posing here.
The first is defining whether love defines hates, or does hate define
love? Does creation define destruction, or does destruction define creation?
Does hope define fear, or does fear define hope? Does God define Satan,
or does Satan define God? Does giving define taking, or does taking define
giving? Those are five parallel questions. And they all come back to what
comes first, love or hate, creation or destruction.

In the order of creation, Yahweh Elohim initiates the power to give, and
teaches Adam and Eve to receive and give to each other this goodness,
then to give back to God in worship. This power to give and receive equals
the basis for trust, for God is trustworthy in his goodness. The man and
woman in covenantal marriage are thus free forever to trust each other,
the basis for a healthy society. Man and woman are equals and complements,
giving to and receiving from one another spiritually, physically, sexually
and emotionally. Sexual promiscuity and homosexuality are based on taking
from someone you cannot trust fully, and this short-circuits the human
soul. And homosexuality is without complementarity.

Thus we can pose a sixth question: Does trust define distrust, or does
distrust define trust?

www.godhatesfags.com starts with a war of distrust, being without the
courage or power to invest trust in broken people's lives, as Jesus did
in John 4 with the woman at the well.

A little background here.
Jesus at noon on a hot day in Samaria decided not to walk around Samaria
like all the Jews would do because of their hatred toward Samaritans,
and vice versa, in the first century. But to walk right through enemy
territory, right through Samaria itself. As he was doing so, the disciples
went into town to buy some food, he went to the well at noon. All the
respectable women of the town come to the well, Jacob’s Well in
fact, in the early morning cool hours. The only people who come at noon
are the prostitutes. So there is Jesus by himself and one woman who comes
up. The disciples are shocked, scandalized, by the fact he is talking
not only to a woman, but talking with a Samaritan who is obviously a prostitute.
And so he asks her for a drink of water and we get into dialog where he
basically draws out of her the desire to see the Messiah. He says, I who
speak to you am he. She’s blown away that she’s talking to
the Messiah that she’s hoping for. And she asked him the question
about the nature of worship, should it be in Samaria or Jerusalem, the
ancient debate between the northern or southern kingdoms, going back at
this point 700-plus years. Jesus says I’ll answer you, but first
call your husband and have him come here and I’ll answer you. And
she says, Sir, I have no husband. Now, she’s scared at this point
and she lies. He doesn’t call her a liar. He says, you are right
in saying you have no husband. You’ve had five and the one you have
now is not your own. She says, Sir, I perceive you to be a prophet, runs
into town, brings everyone, and a whole bunch of belief is the result.
See, he didn’t go to her pain and brokenness and condemn it. He
took the one point of technical truth, technically she didn’t at
that time have a husband. See what’s happening in first century
Palestine, and this is a terrible thing that the Jews did to imitate pagan
culture in doing this. But they had fallen prey to it at this time. There
is no biblical basis for it. If a man wanted to divorce his wife, he simply
stood outside in the hearing of others and looked at her and said, “I
divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you.” And she is out. She
has no property, she has no freedom, she has no resource. And at that
time she had one of two choices, possibly a third in other cultures. But
for the most part two choices. Number one, return to her father’s
house. And a lot wouldn’t allow that. Number two would be, become
a prostitute. There’s other ways not going all the way into prostitution
to survive, but very, very, very tough. And so essentially what happens
is she had five husbands. There were five husbands who took her outside
who said, “I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you.” Now
Jesus is so gracious to her. The truth is that five husbands divorced
you, you must have been a hard woman to live with. And yet Jesus didn’t
bring that accusation. He said, you’ve had five, the one you have
now is not your own because you’ve been in prostitution. And yet
he affirmed the dignity of this broken woman. See, this is the nature.
He invests trust in someone who society distrusts and she responds positively.
And this is who Jesus is. In fact, it says in Romans 5 that God loved
us when we were still enemies. He didn’t love us because we responded
to him initiating the love empowering us to respond. And the same is true
in how we treat all people no matter how much we disagree with them.
The second ethic is the power to live in the light.

The prologue to John's gospel says:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things
were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was
life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness,
but the darkness has not understood it" (vv. 1-5).

The power to live in the light means the freedom to have nothing to hide
from, and with full accountability to God and one another. Thus, a seventh
question: Does light define darkness, or does darkness define light? By
definition, in physics, ethics and spiritual domains, darkness flees the
presence of light.
Isn’t that true? You turn on the light, by definition darkness cannot
be in its presence.

In John 3:19, Jesus says that men loved darkness instead of light, because
they knew their deeds were evil. Darkness cannot understand or overcome
the light. Jesus is the Light of the world, and Satan is the prince of
darkness. To hate hatred with hate is to put no trust in the Light, and
it is to be swallowed up by the darkness. To hate hatred with love allows
the light of God's presence to drive the darkness away.

Jesus, as the incarnate Word, comes to sinful humanity and relates to
our brokenness in terms we can understand, and reveals the truth as light
by definition disperses the darkness. In philosophy there is a concept
called "the metaethics of language." This means that it is not
so much important that we understand what we mean to say, but that our
hearers understand what we mean - especially those who oppose us.

Therefore, to live in
the light is to be open, to be accountable, to reach out to seek to communicate,
to make sure we’re understood. It’s not the easiest thing
to do. I don’t know how well I succeed. But I labor to do it.

www.godhatesfags.com lives in the darkness, is not accountable to the
wider church, and fails to communicate and reveal the truth.

Now what I’m doing
here, by the way, these six ethical components I wrote many, many years
ago. They’re in volume one of my trilogy. And so I am taking what
I believe to be the Word of God on its own terms. I haven’t sculpted
these to criticize Fred Phelps. Rather, I’ve taken what I believe
to be the Bible on its own terms, and looking at what Fred Phelps does.
The power to give, the power to live in the light, I see what he is doing,
it’s not the power to give, it’s the power to take. Not the
power to live in the light, but the power to live in darkness.

The third ethic is the power of informed choice.

Those of you who know
Fred Phelps know he rails against informed choice. He says that we’re
all damned to hell regardless of our opinion, or we are consigned to heaven
regardless of our opinion. We are essentially puppets. He rails against
the power of informed choice.

The first words in the Bible are words of God's sovereignty, and the first
words to Adam from Yahweh are words of freedom. God's sovereignty defines
and provides for human freedom. This is the power of informed choice,
as Yahweh defines for Adam and Eve the terms of good and evil, and the
power to choose between the two.

Here is an eighth question: Does good define evil, or does evil define
good?

God is free, and his freedom is the power to do the good.

In fact, if God didn’t
do the good and did the evil, he would therefore not be God. He would
not be free. Evil enslaves. Only goodness, unadulterated, keeps us free.

Adam
and Eve were given the same freedom. God, himself not a slave, did not
create man and woman as slaves. If God forced them into his will he would
not be good.

This is very, very important.
I think it’s the most important point of understanding the Bible
on its own terms. The power of love and the power to give are the same.
Love is giving a gift to someone. So let’s say for example I looked
at Stan in the front row here, since I know Stan now, and took out my
wallet and I convinced him and the rest of you that I have $100,000 in
cash in here. Actually it’s $30. But let’s pretend it’s
$100,000. Look, he’s reaching out his hand already. So I say, Stan,
I’d like to give you a gift. My wallet has $100,000 cash in it.
I already know what his answer would be because he already extended his
hand. I say I want to give it to you. In order for you to receive it I
must take the wallet, open it sideways, and shove it down your throat
until it reaches the bottom of your intestinal tubing. Would you want
that gift? No. It would be very bad. Yes, he’d be dead by the time
it got down that far. Because it would destroy his intestines and the
hydrochloric acid would destroy the dollar bills. So an autopsy wouldn’t
even save the money for his estate. And so what happens is the very nature
of giving is giving to someone who is free to accept or reject. And here
is the cosmic risk that God takes. And that is that he loves us enough
to let us say no. If he forced us to say yes it would not be love. We
would be puppets or slaves. Look at Fred Phelps’ language, some
of his daughters and others I’ve emailed to: it’s all, you
have no choice, you have no choice. I say, if that’s the case why
bother to communicate with me? If it is all fatally taken care of why
are you spending all your time? That’s not theologically very compelling
to me.

Adam and Eve, made
in his image, were given the same freedom. God, himself not a slave, did
not create man and woman as slaves. If God forced them into his will,
he would not be good. Men and women would not be image-bearers of God,
and would be no more than puppets, robots or animals.

Thus, we have a ninth question: Does freedom define slavery, or does slavery
define freedom?

This God-given freedom is polluted by sin, but Yahweh still respects the
freedom of man and woman to accept or reject his grace.

The word grace, by the way, both in Hebrew and Greek simply means gifts.

Sinful man has no power to save himself, or reach up to God. But God reaches
down to us and provides the gift of salvation, if we will accept it. The
Holy Spirit is the One who mediates this possibility. This reality of
assumed freedom is seen when Yahweh first confronts Cain (Genesis 4:6-7)
[when he said you have
the power to do what’s right] in the final words of Moses
(cf. Deuteronomy 30:11-20) [and
that’s when he says choose life], in the final public words
of Joshua (cf. Joshua 24:14-24) [you
can choose the gods of the Babylonians, the gods of the Egyptians, or
the gods of the Amorites, but as for me and myself and my household, we
will choose Yahweh. Choose this day whom you will serve. The conclusion
of (inaudible) public words], in the Bible's shortest sermon, given
by Elijah (cf. 1 Kings 18:21) [where
he says to the Jews, waver between Baal and Yahweh. He said, if Yahweh
is God serve him, if Baal is God serve him]; in the invitation
of Jesus (Matthew 11:28-30)
[for people to believe in him (inaudible)], in key words of Paul
(cf. Galatians 5:1) [for
freedom Christ has set you free and therefore do not submit again to slavery],
and in the final invitation in the book of Revelation (cf. 22:17) [to
all who are thirsty let him come and drink without cost for freedom].

www.godhatesfags.com says that free will is a lie, that people have no
ultimate choice between heaven and hell; accordingly it means that people
are slaves, and thus God is a slave-master like a pagan deity, which means
that God is first a slave to his own lack of freedom, and therefore not
sovereign.

And you see, they say
that God is sovereign. But God is not free if God is a slave at making
us slaves. They actually by saying God is sovereign, are making him into
a pagan deity and making us into puppets.

The fourth ethic is the power to love hard questions.

All through the Bible, God is hospitable to our toughest questions. Jesus
asked far more questions than he gave answers, for we cannot possess an
answer until first we embrace the question. Here is a tenth question:
Do questions define answers, or do answers define questions?

And this is really critical
in my mind. Do we come to an answer and then shape all our study and knowledge
to what serves that answer? In other words, do we come up with an answer
and only accept the questions that serve our answer? Or are we free enough
and radical enough, as was Jesus, to ask questions and see where the questions
lead us? Only those who know the truth can take that risk. Because if
God is true. . . Remember, Jesus said at one point, he said, if you don’t
see me doing what the Father is doing don’t believe in me. He uses
the if clause often. Only truth can use the if clause. Prove me wrong
if you don’t see me measuring up. And so if we really believe that
God is true then we are free to ask the toughest questions and demand
no answers of ourselves or others. This is true liberty. This is the quintessence
of biblical ethics. It is the very nature of Jewish religion and rabbinic
teaching. The Rabbis loved questions and they recorded questions, hundreds
of thousands over the years, including dumb questions by people who didn’t
know better. Do you know why they recorded them? Everyone was an image
bearer of God. And whatever the question was it was worth listening to
and worth giving an answer. Just to give you an aside, Islam has no power
to be hospitable to hard questions. They do not permit it, among outsiders
especially, and hardly among insiders.

There are many salient hard questions here, such as the moral nature
of hell, whether God still loves those who choose hell, predestination,
and the nature of a biblical theocracy. We can thus pose an eleventh question:
Does heaven define hell, or does hell define heaven?

So this is the fifth
and sixth ethics. The power to give, the power to live in the light, the
power of informed choice, the power to love hard questions. Those first
four are all in the order of creation. The next two sum up redemption
that restores us to the order of creation. The fifth ethic is the power
to love enemies.

Here is a twelfth question: Does friendship define enemies, or do enemies
define friendship? There is a well-known Arab proverb: "The enemy
of my enemy is my friend." But after the mutual enemy is vanquished,
the new friendship resorts back to enemy status. If the sharing of a mutual
enemy is the basis for friendship, hate will triumph over love.

That’s the whole
history of the Middle East. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. And when
you take an enemy to be an enemy to another enemy, and you see it destroy
that enemy [inaudible] becomes your old enemy. But even let me go a little
bit more deeply and radical. Does anyone know why we have war right now
in the Middle East and dealing with terrorism? It is because of a broken
marriage covenant. Abraham was promised that supernaturally in his old
age with Sarah they would have a child. Sarah lost faith in the timing
of that promise. In Genesis 16 she came to Abraham. Their names were Abram
and Sarai. They changed later. She came to Abraham and she said take my
Egyption maidservant Hagar (they still hadn’t broken free of certain
paganisms) and sleep with her and I’ll build my family through her.
Now what’s interesting is that even in the sin of having concubines,
at least the pagans allowed the concubines to raise their own children.
Sarah wasn’t going to do that. Hagar was to be the first surrogate
mother in recorded history. She was going to not buy her womb, but enslave
her womb. [inaudible] conceived the childe, the moment that the boy is
born and take him as her own. As soon as Hagar realized how despicably
she was being used, she despised Sarah. Sarah despised Hagar back as a
result. There was war between the women. Sarah was always conspiring to
get young Ishmael out of the household . And Abraham, because he broke
the covenant, it was Sarah’s idea but Abraham agreed. They were
both at fault. Because of this Abraham was never allowed to be a father
to Ishmael. Look at some of the text in him crying, he pleads to God,
bless Ishmael, I don’t need another son. This man loves his son
but he cannot be the father because Hagar is not allowed to be in the
household, on the property, but not in the household. So Ishmael is the
quintessential fatherless boy. And all children need the love of mom and
the love of dad. Mom in the early years, their nurturing qualities, and
Dad especially in the teenage years to teach ethics and morality and identity
in the face of the culture, by which they can grow and reach maturity.
We need mom and dad all of us. And so Ishmael is robbed of his father
by his father’s and mother’s own fault because of the brokenness
of marriage. So when Isaac is born and Ishmael mocks Isaac when he is
being weaned, we are not told how he mocks him, but I can imagine this.
He has been taught by Hagar that the son of Abraham is going to be a blessing
to all the nations. And you are the son, you are the first son. Maybe
she didn’t understand the truth to be through supernatural provision
of Sarah. But Hagar is striving for her own dignity in this whole process.
And Ishmael, the strong strapping boy, he becomes an archer. He’s
about 13 years old. He’s a boy of 15 when Isaac is weaned. And so
there is a 15 year old strapping young man who sees this two year old
just being weaned and he mocks him and says this is the heir to my father’s
estate? I could beat him up in a flash. Now, that’s historical fiction.
But he was mocking him? But it’s plausible. That’s why it’s
called historical fiction. We try to understand plausibly what happened
in conversations in between the markers of history. But the point is he
mocks him. And therefore there is a war now starting between the women,
now there is warfare between the sons. And Ishmael is driven away by Sarai
once again, and the prophecy upon him is he will become a wild donkey
of a man, with his hands at the throat of his brother. And who are the
descendents of Ishmael? The Arab peoples. And who are the descendents
of Isaac? The Jews. So there is the war today because of the brokenness
of the marriage covenant. The point I was making here back to the Arab
proverb is all rooted in that reality. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
This goes back 3800 years. Somewhere between 1900 and 1800 B.C.
The height of the sermon on the Mount is where Jesus says that perfection
is the power to love enemies.

Now this isn’t Greek perfection, which really is what [inaudible]
talked when you come right down to it, a perfectly sculpted profile. In
Hebrew perfection is not not having sin, it is in right relationship.
There is a dynamic humanity to it and Jesus says that perfection is in
the power to love enemies.

Are we more concerned with perfect doctrine in the abstract, or in obeying
Jesus in the concrete? Paul also says, in Romans 5, that Christ died for
us when we were still his enemies (vv. 8-10). How can we but love those
who are still his enemies? Paul says in Romans 12: "Bless those who
persecute you; bless and do not curse" (v. 14).

www.godhatesfags.com defines enemies as its basis for whom it accepts
as friends; it curses enemies and in its reaction to certain militant
homosexuals, it mocks Proverbs 15.

The sixth ethic is the power to forgive.

After Jesus taught us the Lord's Prayer, he said:

"For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly
Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins,
your Father will not forgive your sins" (Matthew 6:14-15).

The power to forgive is the power to give in the face of the violation
of human sin. Those who do not desire forgiveness for others mock the
forgiveness they may have received, and are happier in hell where they
can stew in their bitter and self-righteous juices.

Do you know that biblically
no one goes to hell except those who want to? And no one goes to heaven
except those who want to go. A marvelous short book on this subject is
C.S. Lewis’ The Great Divorce. And let me give you an example
of the ethics of this reality. Is there anyone here this evening who has
ever experienced bitterness? One, two, three. Now, I want to give you
a definition. It’s two words. Trust betrayed. We’re not bitter
against those enemies on the other side of the barricade unseen. We get
bitter against people who can be trusted and who violate that trust. Now,
has anyone here ever enjoyed feeling bitter? I asked the question this
morning. And in a way I gave example. Has anyone here ever plotted revenge?
Ah, smiles. And didn’t you enjoy plotting revenge because that person
who lied to you, who stole, is going to get their come-uppance? Now, most
plots are simply in fantasy life. There are two ways to accomplish revenge.
There is the pagan way, and the “sanctified” way. The pagan
way is to position yourself strategically and push the person against
whom you are bitter in front of an oncoming Mack truck. That accomplishes
revenge. The “sanctified” way is to pray that they trip and
fall in front of the Mack truck. And Jesus rebuked the disciples when
they wanted to call fire down from heaven. He said no, vengeance belongs
to God. Only God has mercy to that can triumph over judgment. The only
vengeance he ever gives is that people who spit in his face will get mercy
and love. Another way you can look at this, you can look at the Second
Coming of Jesus in Luke 21 and in Revelation 6. Luke 21, look up and rejoice
for your redemption draws near. That’s a loving relationship, eyeball
to eyeball with the soon-coming King. It’s based on trust and forgiveness.
In Revelation 6, when the signs of the coming of the Son of Man appear
in the heavenlies, the peoples of the earth and the kings of the nations
cry for the mountains and the rocks to fall on them and crush them to
dust. They would rather be crushed in the dust of death, than look eyeball
to eyeball at the Savior. They would rather have darkness, loneliness
and stewing forever in the bitterness.

Voice in audience:
They?

John:
They?

Voice in audience:
Who’s they?

John:
Those who want the mountains to fall on them. You see, in Revelation 6,
when the sign of the coming of the Son of Man reveals himself, the kings
of the earth and the peoples cry out for the rocks and mountains to fall
on them and crush them to death, rather than to look at Jesus eyeball
to eyeball. They would rather have the darkness and death of being crushed
by death than the humility of forgiveness and reconciliation. We can only
reconcile if we forgive as we have been forgiven. And there are people,
and you know this, people who would rather die in bitterness than to forgive
and be reconciled. That is the moral nature of hell. And so what happens
is, people choose hell. They would far rather be happy with the fire of
anger in their breast and the darkness surrounding their souls, plotting
revenge into eternity, than they would forgive and be forgiven. So this
is the power of forgiving versus those who refuse forgiveness.

In Luke 7, Jesus says
of the woman sinner, "Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been
forgiven - for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves
little" (v. 47).

In James 2, the apostle says:

"Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that
gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will we shown to anyone
who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment" (vv. 12-13).

Thus, a fourteenth
question: Does mercy define judgment, or does judgment define mercy?

Let me just give you
the fourteen questions to show how they are all parallel, and they’re
all being asked of Fred Phelps, none of which, by the way, he answered.
Actually that’s not quite true. I finally got him at the end of
the debate to say that hate defines love. But it took me a long time before
he would agree with that. Because that’s exactly what he believes.

1. Does love define hate, or does hate define love?

2. Does creation define destruction, or does destruction define creation?

www.godhatesfags.com
allows judgment to trump mercy; in so doing, the question may be asked:
Do its sponsors know the God of mercy, or do they only know a god of merciless
pettiness - like a [pagan]
Zeus?

In 1988 at Harvard, three women classmates once approached me during lunch.
They said they were lesbian, and that every lesbian they knew had been
physically, sexually or emotionally abused as girls. When I heard this,
I prayed in my spirit, "Dear God above, does the church know this
testimony, or do we just condemn?”

Now, speaking as a man, a husband and father, I ask any father here today:
How would you respond if you learned years later that your daughter had
been so abused, and thus turned to lesbianism out of the fear of men?
[So beyond your control.
She was abused and turned to lesbianism.] Would you look at her,
and say, "God hates you, you dirty hell-bound faggot?" [And
that’s the Fred Phelps language.] Or would you wrap your
arms around her in protective love and seek to minister to her wounded
soul? How much more does our heavenly Father love all his children, the
sons and daughters of Adam and Eve.

Isaiah 42 speaks of the Messiah:

"He will not shout or cry out, or raise his voice in the streets.
A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff
out" (vv. 2-3).

This is the language of binding up the broken hearted, of protecting the
last flicker of hope in a wounded soul from the violent winds of adversity,
cupping the hands around the wick and gently breathing the smolder back
into a bright flame.

The Messiah himself says in Matthew 11:

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give
you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and
humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is
easy and my burden is light" (vv. 28-30).

Can we imagine how www.godhatesfags.com might counsel the father in speaking
to his daughter? Would it be to call her a hell-bound faggot? Can we imagine
www.godhatesfags.com walking in the light of Isaiah 42? Or, in its chosen
language with raised voice, would it break the bruised reed, quench the
smoldering wick, and in fact, would it oppose Jesus in his Messianic fulfillment
of this prophecy?

In 1996 I addressed a packed forum at Yale Divinity School, where much
of the audience was homosexual, and most others were thus sympathetic.
Yet they all agreed that the Bible on its own terms is defined by the
doctrines of creation, sin and redemption in Genesis 1-3. So I asked:
Where in the order of creation is homosexuality found? No evidence could
be provided.

And you’ve heard
the weakness of the attempt last night. In fact, I saw Steven Kindle this
morning. And those of you who were here last night, you heard him arguing
that God brought him all the animals, asking him which one he wanted as
his mate, which is as novel an interpretation as I’ve ever heard.
So I asked him this morning, you mean to say that when God brought a goat,
if Adam had said I want the goat as my helpmate and my wife, he would
have given him the goat? And Steven Kindle said yes. This is the best
argument I’ve heard to say that homosexuality is in the order of
creation. But I could have asked him, why didn’t he bring him a
man if homosexuality is [inaudible].

So I asked: Where in
the order of creation is homosexuality found? No evidence could be provided.

After a break for refreshments, several ex-homosexuals from New York City
gave their testimonies of conversion and lasting change through Jesus.

In the ten days following, the two student evangelical leaders who organized
the forum were approached by as many as 20 avowed homosexuals. These homosexuals
all posed the same question, "How can I change?" Jesus came
to seek and save the lost. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 testifies to the possibility
for homosexuals, and all sinners, to be transformed by the grace of God.

Would any homosexual student at Yale seek out www.godhatesfags.com for
a listening ear?

Therefore, love defines hate, but for www.godhatesfags.com hate defines
love and accordingly reverses the biblical order of creation. The same
is true as www.godhatesfags.com allows destruction to define creation,
fear to define hope, Satan to define God, taking to define giving, distrust
to define trust, darkness to define light, evil to define good, slavery
to define freedom, answers to define questions, hell to define heaven,
enemies to define friendship, curses to define blessings, and judgment
to define mercy.

The "gospel" of www.godhatesfags.com is bad news, not the Good
News [the true gospel]
of the Messiah. It is reactive in its insecurity, not proactive in confidence.
It is indeed pagan in its ethics.

The true Gospel calls all people to repentance, based on the love of God
for all sinners, homosexual or otherwise, and based on the evidence that
God is good. The evil which God hates is rooted in his prior and defining
love for us, that we may be set free from its tyranny.